Morgan Knowles at the RFL Disciplinary...

[Old Frightful]

Two match penalty notice...thought it might have been one or two more given his recent record.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61756/disciplinary-|-match-review-panel

[Just Browny]

I think that's proportionate for the incident; very fortunate considering his recent record.

[Dunbar]

Probably a bit on the lucky side.  Don't think he can complain at all with 2 weeks.

But why would you do that in the 80th minute in your first game back after a 5 game ban.

[Saint Toppy]

20 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

Two match penalty notice...thought it might have been one or two more given his recent record.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61756/disciplinary-|-match-review-panel

Thats not how the disciplinary works. His grading was based on the offence (Grade C) which carries a 1-2 match ban, with 1 match being the starting point. Because he has 3 other offences over the last 2 years then he automatically then receives the maximum length of ban for that particular grade (which is 2 matches). 

He can't receive a longer ban than 2 matches for a grade C offence, no player can regardless of their record.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Saint Toppy

[Old Frightful]

3 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I think that's proportionate for the incident; very fortunate considering his recent record.

Perhaps they class him as one of their mates now?

[Old Frightful]

1 minute ago, Saint Toppy said:

Thats not how the disciplinary works. His grading was based on the offence (Grade C) which carries a 1-2 match ban, with 1 match being the starting point. Because he has 3 other offences over the last 2 years then he automatically then receives the maximum length of ban for that particular grade (which is 2 matches). 

Sorry if I'm being a tad dim which I sometimes am, but, as you said one match was the starting point, could he have initially been given two matches for the offence increased to three or four given his poor record?

I'm asking this because of how you worded your explanation, which I'm grateful for even though it could be read two ways.

[Saint Toppy]

3 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

Sorry if I'm being a tad dim which I sometimes am, but, as you said one match was the starting point, could he have initially been given two matches for the offence increased to three or four given his poor record?

I'm asking this because of how you worded your explanation, which I'm grateful for even though it could be read two ways.

You can't impose a ban greater than the grading limit, which for Grade C is 2 matches. 

To receive a ban longer than 2 matches they would have had to have deemed the offence to have fallen into a Grade D or above category.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Saint Toppy

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Saint Toppy said:

You can't impose a ban greater than the grading limit, which for Grade C is 2 matches. 

To receive a ban longer than 2 matches they would have had to have deemed the offence to have fallen into a Grade D or above category.

I could be wrong but Im sure that’s incorrect, the number of games are just guidelines and can be extended if they deemed it warrants more.

[Old Frightful]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

I could be wrong but Im sure that’s incorrect, the number of games are just guidelines and can be extended if they deemed it warrants more.

That would make more sense, with respect to Toppy.

Otherwise if he carries out a grade C offence every time he plays, he'll never receive a greater ban than two games, which is surely ludicrous for a repeat offender.

[Saint Toppy]

27 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I could be wrong but Im sure that’s incorrect, the number of games are just guidelines and can be extended if they deemed it warrants more.

They were in the past but they changed when they brought in the new grading systems this year. They claimed it then removed the 'grey areas' of players receiving differing bans for similar offences, which is something clubs had raised as being an issue with the RFL. There was just too much inconsistency which caused a lot of confusion for clubs & players alike. And wherever there's confusion there's a field day for lawyers.

It was supposed to both simplify the system and remove some of the areas for 'interpretation', thus (in the eyes of the RFL) also lowering the chances for legal appeals. 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Saint Toppy

[Michael Bates]

38 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But why would you do that in the 80th minute in your first game back after a 5 game ban.

Lack of action in between the ears.

[StandOffHalf]

The World Cup IMO exposed the gulf in class between Radley and Knowles. Radley is a meany but he's got nous to add the sweet stuff. Knowles is a bully who is also tough and mean, but he doesn't have anything like the same class.

I'm becoming less and less of a fan the more I see of Knowles.

[Barry Badrinath]

32 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I could be wrong but Im sure that’s incorrect, the number of games are just guidelines and can be extended if they deemed it warrants more.

pretty sure someone got this earlier this year, and there were complaints it was 3 games, instead of the guideline of 2, might have been a saints player

[Dunbar]

Knowles and Victor Radley must be in a private bet to see who can be the daftest #13 in world Rugby League and get sent off / banned the most. 

They have both reallu upped their games this last week.

[Phil]

43 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

The World Cup IMO exposed the gulf in class between Radley and Knowles. Radley is a meany but he's got nous to add the sweet stuff. Knowles is a bully who is also tough and mean, but he doesn't have anything like the same class.

I'm becoming less and less of a fan the more I see of Knowles.

I like Radley, he’s tough and mean but as you say he’s got a bit of nous. He certainly wouldn’t attack the back of a player’s head in the 80th minute of a match that was won.

Maybe Knowles is a throwback to the old days but he’s a liability. It will be interesting to see what Saints do with him at the end of the season. 

[StandOffHalf]

12 minutes ago, Phil said:

I like Radley, he’s tough and mean but as you say he’s got a bit of nous. He certainly wouldn’t attack the back of a player’s head in the 80th minute of a match that was won.

Maybe Knowles is a throwback to the old days but he’s a liability. It will be interesting to see what Saints do with him at the end of the season. 

They're mongrels the both of them, haha. They both can be liabilities, but I think Radley has a good bit more between the ears in terms of skill.

I do like a lot about Knowles, so I don't mean to be overly dismissive.

[Dunbar]

Think people are giving Radley a bit of grace that Knowles certainly wouldn't get in the same situation. 

I mean who gets a ban for a headbutt in a scuffle in 2023.  Just plain daft.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Dunbar

[Saint Toppy]

34 minutes ago, Phil said:

I like Radley, he’s tough and mean but as you say he’s got a bit of nous. He certainly wouldn’t attack the back of a player’s head in the 80th minute of a match that was won.

 

No he just likes headbutting opposition players instead, unless of course there's another Victor Radley in the NRL who isn't facing a 3-4 game ban for a headbutt this weekend. Can't be the Victor Radley that's supposedly got a bit of nous 

[StandOffHalf]

17 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

No he just likes headbutting opposition players instead, unless of course there's another Victor Radley in the NRL who isn't facing a 3-4 game ban for a headbutt this weekend. Can't be the Victor Radley that's supposedly got a bit of nous 

Nous in a footballing sense - linking, tip-ons, etc. 

He's got a few screws loose in the physicality stakes, no doubt about that.

[Ullman]

3 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

Two match penalty notice...thought it might have been one or two more given his recent record.

https://www.rugby-league.com/article/61756/disciplinary-|-match-review-panel

Can we just pin this topic?

[DavidM]

1 hour ago, Saint Toppy said:

No he just likes headbutting opposition players instead, unless of course there's another Victor Radley in the NRL who isn't facing a 3-4 game ban for a headbutt this weekend. Can't be the Victor Radley that's supposedly got a bit of nous 

So you’d probably cheer Knowles but boo Radley ?

[Phil]

54 minutes ago, DavidM said:

So you’d probably cheer Knowles but boo Radley ?

Very good, excellent

[Dave T]

4 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

You can't impose a ban greater than the grading limit, which for Grade C is 2 matches. 

To receive a ban longer than 2 matches they would have had to have deemed the offence to have fallen into a Grade D or above category.

 

4 hours ago, Chrispmartha said:

I could be wrong but Im sure that’s incorrect, the number of games are just guidelines and can be extended if they deemed it warrants more.

Toppy is indeed incorrect. 

I'm surprised it was missed by all, but Knowles just returned from a 5 match ban for a Grade D offence which has a normal range of 2-3 matches. 

It's frankly bizarre that the aggravating factors of ban after ban after ban is ignored this week. 

[Chris22]

I think Toppy is right. You can go outside of the recommended range only when a matter is referred to the tribunal and that only happens for an offence of Grade D or above.

Regardless, Knowles can have no complaints about a two match ban nor can he have any complaints if he finds himself on the bench with Bell starting, once he returns.

[Dave T]

47 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

I think Toppy is right. You can go outside of the recommended range only when a matter is referred to the tribunal and that only happens for an offence of Grade D or above.

Regardless, Knowles can have no complaints about a two match ban nor can he have any complaints if he finds himself on the bench with Bell starting, once he returns.

Grade D isn't automatically sent to a hearing. Grade D's are usually served a penalty notice. Knowles was called to a hearing with grade D last time due to aggravating factors (Cooper's injury).